Quasi-experimental and experimental assessment of electronic textbook experiences: Student perceptions and test performance.

Abstract

An increasing number of psychology students encounter electronic textbooks (e-texts), whether by personal choice or instructor adoption. Across two studies-one quasiexperimental and one experimental-we compared students' experiences with print books versus e-texts. Study 1 capitalized on a naturally occurring comparison: the same course was taught across consecutive semesters at the same university using the same text, but once requiring a print book and once requiring an e-text. An anonymous survey revealed comparable ratings of the degree to which students across the two semesters felt their text was interesting, clear, able to hold their attention, and good value for their money. E-text students reported spending significantly more time on mid/end-of-chapter practice multiple-choice questions than did print book students, and enthusiasm for using an e-text was greater after experience with the modality. Study 2 was a controlled experiment in which participants read the identical section of a psychology text, but were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (a) print book, (b) on-screen portable document format (PDF), or (c) interactive e-text. Once again, self-report measures were comparable across groups, with the exceptions being that interactive e-text participants reported spending the most time on practice multiplechoice questions and finding those questions most helpful. On a postreading test, interactive e-text participants outperformed other groups on items that were similar to the earlier practice questions, but the three groups did not differ significantly on overall test performance, providing no evidence that on-screen text presentation impaired memory or comprehension. Classroom implications, study limitations, and future research directions are explored.

Interactive features of E-texts’ effects on learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…A review of the findings to consider which features were beneficial and which were not helpful would help in understanding these findings. There were 17 studies in which statistically significant positive effects on at least one learning measure were noted (Asrowi et al, 2019;Chang et al, 2019;Chaudhri et al, 2013;Chen et al, 2014;Chen et al, 2018;Dennis et al, 2016, Ebied 2015Jin, 2013;Hsiao et al, 2016;Jin, 2013;Li et al, 2013;Lustria, 2007;Mochizuki et al, 2019;Sommers et al, 2019;Zarzour & Sellami, 2017;Zarzour & Sellami, 2018a;Zarzour & Sellami, 2018b). Most of these studies with positive effects had multiple interactive features making it challenging to discern the features or combination of features most effective.…”

“…Questions or other assessments with feedback were considered to be particularly helpful as they could guide the reader to make accurate connections thereby promoting better textbase and situation model development. Five of the studies with positive effects involved some form of questions or prompts with feedback (Asrowi et al, 2019;Chaudhri et al, 2013;Chen et al, 2018;Hsiao et al 2016;Sommers et al, 2019). However, there were some exceptions.…”

“…There are numerous ways in which screens could enhance or scaffold the reading experience that are not possible with paper. Multiple studies have been conducted examining how interactive features of digital texts may affect reading comprehension (e.g., Jin, 2013; Sommers et al, 2019;Weng et al, 2018). It is possible that these interactive features could overcome issues with screen inferiority.…”

The XXI Century Foreign Language Textbook as a Challenge for Publishers

“…Due to the absence of strict limitations on the part of the authorities as to the choice of online tools (or web applications) when teaching, all kinds of means and digital technologies have come to the disposal of teachers, with the help of which everything that was only dreamed of a few years ago has become real. In this connection, it became relevant to operate with the concept of "electronic textbook" (e-textbook) (Sommers, Shin, Greenebaum, Merker & Sanders, 2019;Leddo, J. et al, 2020). However, many scholars talked about a modern and actual e-textbook as "interactive textbook" (Van Horne, Russell & Schun, 2016), "interactive digital textbook" (Bikowski, & Casal, 2018) and "intelligent e-textbook" (Weber & Brusilovsky, 2015;Boulanger & Kumar, 2021) highlighting their various features in different ways.…”

Can you judge a book by its modality? An experimental comparison of reading and test performance across a print, electronic, or interactive introduction to psychology textbook assignment.

“…For example, interactive e-texts often provide readers with repeated practice testing opportunities followed by instant feedback, as well as videos that illustrate concepts, digital glossaries that show the definition of terms, and figures and tables that lend themselves to active user manipulation (Clinton-Lisell et al, 2021;Spencer et al, 2020). Indeed, several previous studies have found no evidence for poorer student performance in interactive e-text conditions compared to print conditions (Almekhlafi, 2021;Liu et al, 2020;Morris & Lambe, 2017;Sommers et al, 2019), and yet others have found better performance with interactive e-texts (Asrowi et al, 2019;Chaudhri et al, 2013;Dennis et al, 2016;Hsiao et al, 2016). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis that included only studies involving interactive e-texts showed an advantage of e-texts over print text on learning outcomes (Clinton-Lisell et al, 2021).…”